*1 936 Stаte, 24; Alexander, Dallas, Tex.Cr.App., Ware appellant.
S.W.2d v. for David 256; State, S.W.2d v. 467 Albitez Tex.Cr. Henry Wade, Atty., Dist. L. Jerome App., 461 609. The facts do not S.W.2d Croston, Atty., Dallas, Asst. Dist. D. Jim fаll within of the doctrine Roviaro v. Unit- Vollers, Atty., Huttash, State’s Robert A. States, 53, 623, ed 353 U.S. 77 1 S.Ct. L. Atty., Austin, Asst. State’s for the State. State, (1957); Ed.2d 639 and v. James 201, Tex.Cr.App., ap- 493 does not S.W.2d ply. OPINION
Appellant’s ground second of error is ROBERTS, Judge.
ovеrruled. judgment Appellant The is affirmed. was in county convicted the court of the offense of driving, reckless Opinion approved by the Court. 6701d, 51, under Art. Seс. Vernon’s Ann.
Civ.St.; he assessed a was fine of $100. only The error claimed to relаtes the constitutionality of the under statute which he was convicted. The stаtute reads: person “Any who any drives vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safe- ty persons of or property guilty is of GARCIA, Appellant, Tony Dieter driving.” reсkless v. It appellant’s is that contention the statute Texas, Appellеe. The STATE of vague, is so indefinite and uncertain that it No. 46783. is Court, rendered in void. This Ex Pаrte Chernosky, 52, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 217 S.W.2d Appeals of Court of Texas. Criminal (1949), 673 driving held void a reckless Sept. 19, 1973. statute because of the of inclusion the
phrase, “.
.
due
. without
сaution or
circumspection .
.
.”
.
This Court
phrase
concluded
this
that
rendered the
vague.
statute unconstitutionally
See also
Pena,
560,
Ex Parte De Lа
157 Tex.Cr.R.
890,
phrase
251 S.W.2d
891 (1952). The
statute,
present
quot-
does not occur in the
abоve,
ed
which became effective in 1971.
language
present
The
of the
statute is
to
almost identical
that of the Illinois stat
Laws,
driving.
ute on reckless
Illinois
See
95i/2,
S.H.A.,
only
11—503. The
ch.
Sec.
word,
difference is a
in that
matter
one
of
rеquires
Illinois
that one drive
will
“with”
ful
disregard,
“in”
and wanton
rather than
and
our
disregard
willful
wanton
does
as
repeated
statute. The Illinois courts have
ly upheld
against
this
that it
statute
claims
vague.
People Green,
was
368 Ill.
See
v.
242,
City Rock
(1938);
es, аs we conclude that the ONION, J., joins in dissent. P. this is not unconstitutional. judgment
The is affirmed.
MORRISON, Judge (dissenting). issue of consti- do the
I not believe that
tutionality properly is before this Court.1 upon which complaint and information
The fatally de-
appеllant convicted are stands Chris FINCH, Appellant, Bob fective, upon to thе acts relied because v. alleged as re- negligence constitute are not The of Texas, Appellee. STATE 21.IS, The com- quired by Art. V.A.C.C.P. No. 46782. plaint сharged appellant that Appeals of Texas. of Criminal Court for disregard “and in wilful and wanton Sept. 19, to- safety property, and persons the оf 1973.
wit, operate a drive and motor vehicle public highway.”
on a and strеet State, in In a similar v. situation Jones 716, appel-
Tex.Cr.App., where 388 S.W.2d pled guilty aggravated
lant had to assault complaint with a motor vehicle and the Alexander, Dallas, appellаnt. for David charged as follows: L. Atty., Henry Wade, Dist. Jerome then and a ve- “did there drive motor Dallas, D. Croston, Atty., Dist. Asst. Jim hicle, upon a to-wit: a truck tractor Hut- Vollеrs, Atty. and Robert A. State’s public highway, Highway State 7 to-wit Austin, the for Atty., tash, Asst. State’s 103, Highway and аnd did then State State. aggravated and there commit an assault upon person in George and the of Chro- willfully and by
mack then and there OPINION negligence and caus- colliding with with injury person George of Chro- ing to the ROBERTS, Judge.
mack,” of thе offense was convicted Appellant such was because of conviction reversed 6701d, Sec. driving, under Art. of reckless complaint the of the and informa- failure Ann.Civ.St.; he was assessed 51, upon to Vernon’s allege to the act or acts tion relied a fine of by the as negligence required $100. constitute 461, Taylor State, 124. 358 S.W.24 1. 172 Tex.Cr.lt. v.